Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 241 (TS)

Nalluri Damodher Rao v. State of Telangana

2025-04-03

K.SARATH

body2025
ORDER : K.SARATH, J. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in passing of order in Case No.D1/2963/2016 dated 15.07.2017 for rectification of mutations for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-32 gts in Sy.No.42/1A of Battisawargoan Village, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri V.R.Avula, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Harindra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the material on record. 3. After filing this writ petition, the respondent No.5 expired and the respondent No.6 was impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased respondent No.6. The respondent No.7 got impleaded himself as the respondent, but failed to file counter. None appeared for the respondent No.7 on the date of hearing. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of petitioner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts and Ac.2-12 gts through registered documents bearing No.153 of 1980 dated 21.02.1980 and bearing document No.135 of 1981 dated 21.02.1981 respectively and the petitioner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts through registered document bearing No.687 of 1981 dated 27.07.1981 and the said lands are situated in Sy.No.42/1A situated at Battisawargoan Village, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District and their names were also mutated in the revenue records for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3-32 gts and Ac.2-00 gts respectively and out of the said lands, they have sold the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts to the third parties. In the year, 2014 the respondent No.5 filed application to cancel the mutation of the petitioner No.1 and his father alleging that wrong patta was granted to them, the respondent No.3 issued notices to the petitioners and also called for report of the respondent No.4-Tahsildar. After due enquiry, the respondent No.3 has dismissed the said application on 21.04.2016 and challenging the same, the respondent No.5 filed a revision before the respondent No.2 and the same was allowed on 15.07.2017 remitting the matter to the respondent No.4-Tahsildar for rectification of entries in the revenue records. 5. After due enquiry, the respondent No.3 has dismissed the said application on 21.04.2016 and challenging the same, the respondent No.5 filed a revision before the respondent No.2 and the same was allowed on 15.07.2017 remitting the matter to the respondent No.4-Tahsildar for rectification of entries in the revenue records. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are in possession of the subject property and mutations were effected in the year, 1983 and the respondent No.5 filed application in the year 2014 i.e, after 30 years by creating fake documents without approaching the competent Civil Court for agitating his rights over the subject lands. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent No.2 without application of mind has entertained the revision and issued notice to the petitioners. The petitioners have submitted a detailed counter raising various grounds including delay, but the respondent No.2 without looking into the same allowed the revision petition. The said order of the respondent No.2 is nothing but deciding the title of the property as well as unsettling the settled rights of the individuals, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent No.2. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are in possession of the property and the mutation was effected beyond more than 30 years back and the respondent No.5 also sought for delivery of possession of the property. Without going into the said issues and without explaining the inordinate delay of more than 30 years, the respondent No.5 has approached the respondent authorities and the respondent No.2 has entertained the same and passed the impugned order, which is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act , 1971 (for short ‘the Act 1971’) and requested to set aside the impugned order and allow the writ petition. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following Judgments:- 1. V. Goutham Rao vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, Karimnagar District , 2003 (1) ALD 681 . 2. Velagapudi Satyanarayana vs. District Collector, Nalgonda , 2000 (6) ALD 153 . 3. M.B.Ratnam vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District , 2003(1) ALD 826 (DB). 8. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following Judgments:- 1. V. Goutham Rao vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, Karimnagar District , 2003 (1) ALD 681 . 2. Velagapudi Satyanarayana vs. District Collector, Nalgonda , 2000 (6) ALD 153 . 3. M.B.Ratnam vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District , 2003(1) ALD 826 (DB). 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue based on the counter submits that as per the revenue records, Sri Neerati Pedda Ganga was the original pattadar of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.5-32 gts in Sy.No.42/1A situated at Battisawargoan Village of Mavala Mandal, whereas other than pattadars were sold out the said land to the petitioners and accordingly, the patta was granted to the petitioners for the suit schedule land. He submits that in the impugned order, the respondent No.2 noticed that the then Tahsildar erred in issuing orders for transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner No.1 and his father and implemented in the revenue records wrongly for the schedule land. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that at the time of registration, the executors of the sale deeds were not pattadars in the revenue records, but at that point of time Sri Neerati Pedda Ganganna was the pattadar and in view of the report of the Tahsildar, the matter was remitted to the Tahsildar for rectification of entries in the revenue records and directed to pass appropriate orders basing on the records as required under Section 15(3) of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Rules, 1989. As per the revenue records and registration documents, the mutation proceedings issued in favour of the petitioners were not in procedure and the respondent No.2 has rightly remitted the matter and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 based on the counter submits that the respondent No.6 is the owner and possessor of the subject land having inherited from her father-in-law Sri N. Pedda Ganganna. He submits that no notice was issued to the husband of the respondent No.6 before deleting the name of her father- in-law in the revenue records. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 based on the counter submits that the respondent No.6 is the owner and possessor of the subject land having inherited from her father-in-law Sri N. Pedda Ganganna. He submits that no notice was issued to the husband of the respondent No.6 before deleting the name of her father- in-law in the revenue records. In response to the RTI application of the respondent No.6, the revenue authority has informed that there are no mutation proceedings of the year, 1983 pertaining to the subject lands and in the absence of any mutation proceedings, the amendment of revenue records is illegal and nullity. He further submits that as the father of the respondent No.5 died in the year, 1973, the question of registration of suit schedule lands in the year, 1980 or 1981 by him does not arise and the petitioners are claiming the subject lands by virtue of false sale deeds created by them in collusion with the revenue authorities. He submits that after the revision petition was allowed, the revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the respondent No.6 and the Mandal Surveyor has conducted survey, fixed the boundaries and handed over possession to her and she is enjoying the subject land peacefully and he requested to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 has relied on the following Judgments:- 1. Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue Officer , 2007 SCC OnLine AP 459. 2. C.S.H.N.Murthy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh , 1999 SCC OnLine AP 785. 3. Allala Ravinder Reddy vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Director, Municipal Administration, Srecretariat, Hyderabad, 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 609. 4. State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306. 5. D.L.F.Housing Constrution (P) Ltd., vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation, (1976) 3 SCC 160 . 6. Konkana Ravinder Goud vs. Bhavanarishi Co- operative House Building Society, Hyderabad, 2003 SCC OnLine AP 852. 12. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners herein are questioning the order passed by the respondent No.2 in revision petition No.D1/2963/2016 dated 15.07.2017 filed by the deceased respondent No.5 under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. 12. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners herein are questioning the order passed by the respondent No.2 in revision petition No.D1/2963/2016 dated 15.07.2017 filed by the deceased respondent No.5 under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. The case of the petitioners is that the father of petitioner No.1 Sri Nalluri Gopal has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3-32 gts and the petitioner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.42/1A situated in Battisawargoan Village, Mavala Mandal, Adilabad District through registered sale deeds. After purchase, the name of the father of petitioner No.1 was recorded as pattadar for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3-32 gts through proceedings No.A1/1118/1983 dated 23.08.1983 and thereafter, the name of the petitoner No.1 was also mutated in the revenue records for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts and out of the said land, the petitioners sold away the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts to the third parties. While it being so, in the year, 2014 the respondent No.5 herein made representations to the respondent No.3 for cancellation of said mutations and the same was rejected by the respondent No.3 in Proc.C/658/2014 dated 21.04.2016 stating that the mutation of Revenue Records and pattas were granted by virtue of registered sale deeds prior to 1984-85 and the request of the respondent No.5 was rejected by granting liberty to seek redressal in the civil Court. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent No.5 filed revision before the respondent No.2 under Section 9 of ROR Act, 1971. After hearing both sides and basing on the report of the Tahsildar, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order in Case No.D1/2963/2016 dated 15.07.2017. 13. In the impugned order, the respondent No.2 has stated that the revision is liable to be remitted for reconsideration basing on the records, but at the same time directed the respondent No.4 for rectification of entries in the revenue records and pass appropriate orders basing on the records as required under Section 15(3) of the Act, 1971. 14. 13. In the impugned order, the respondent No.2 has stated that the revision is liable to be remitted for reconsideration basing on the records, but at the same time directed the respondent No.4 for rectification of entries in the revenue records and pass appropriate orders basing on the records as required under Section 15(3) of the Act, 1971. 14. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No.5 after more than 30 years has approached the respondent No.3 by filing application without stating anything about the delay and the respondent No.3 has rightly rejected the application of the respondent No.5 and directed him to approach the competent Civil Court and without approaching the competent Civil Court, the respondent No.5 has approached the respondent No.2 by filing a revision against the rejection orders, which is not maintainable as there is no proper appeal as per ROR Act and the mutation proceedings were effected before the amendment of Section 5-B of ROR Act i.e, prior to 31.10.1993 and the revision itself is not maintainable as per the orders of this Court in M.B.Ratnam’s case (supra 3). 15. The other contention of the petitioners is that if any grievance, the unofficial respondents has to approach the competent civil Court and the entries made in the record of rights would be amended in accordance with the declaration of the Civil Court as per Section 8(2) of the ROR Act as held by this Court in V. Goutham Rao’s case (supra 1). The contention of the petitioners is that the revision petition is not maintainable after a lapse of 30 years as held by this Court in Velagapudi Satyanarayana’s case (supra 2). 16. In the instant case, basing on the registered documents, the then Tahsildar has mutated the records in favour of the father of the petitioner and the petitioner No.1 in the year, 1983. 16. In the instant case, basing on the registered documents, the then Tahsildar has mutated the records in favour of the father of the petitioner and the petitioner No.1 in the year, 1983. As per the report of the Tahsildar dated 23.12.2014, on verification of faisal patti of Battisawargaon village for the year 1982-83, it was found that under Fouthi Mubadula Kammi statement at Sl.No.3, Neerati Pedda Ganga S/o.Pochiga was recorded as pattadar in Sy.No.42/1A to an extent of Ac.5-32 gts, but the father of the petitoner No.1 has purchased the land to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts out of Ac.5-32 gts in Sy.No.42/1A vide registered document No.153/80 dated 21.02.1980 from Neerati Ganganna S/o. Ganganna and Neerati Poshetty S/o.Ganganna, but they were not the pattadars as on the date of registration and the petitioner No.1 has purchased the land to an extent of Ac:2-00 from one Smt Mutyala Narsamma through registered document dated 27.07.1981 and she was also not the pattadar of the said land. There is no link document with regard to the land purchased by said Mutyala Narsamma from the pattadars. 17. As per the writ affidavit, father of the petitioner No.1 has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts through registered document No.153/1980 dated 21.02.1980 from Neerati Ganganna and Neerati Poshetti and the said registered documents filed along with the material papers in the writ affidavit at page Nos.25 to 33. As per the translation, it is stated that the name of vendor is Nireti Ganganna S/o. Pedda Ganganna only. The other extent of land Ac:2-12 gts through registered sale deed document No.135/1981 dated 21.02.1981 from Nereti Ganganna as per writ affidavit and the said registered documents filed along with the material papers at page No.34 shows that the same was purchased from Neerati Pedda Gangaram S/o. Ganganna and Neerati Poshetti S/o.Ganganna. It clearly shows that the facts stated by the petitoner in the writ affidavit are contrary to the registered documents and the petitoner nowhere disputed with regard to the death of Neerati Pedda Ganganna in the year, 1973 as stated by the respondent No.6 in their counter. 18. The contention of the unofficial respondent is that before mutating the records, the authorities have to issue notice to all the persons whose names were incorporated in ROR. 18. The contention of the unofficial respondent is that before mutating the records, the authorities have to issue notice to all the persons whose names were incorporated in ROR. In the instant case, the name of father of the respondent No.5 was recorded as pattadar in the year, 1982-83, but without issuing any notice to the family members of the deceased pattadar, the then Tahsildar has mutated the records. 19. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 has relied on the Judgment in Chinnam Pandurangam’s case (supra 4) and relevant portion is extracted as under:- “10. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. If an application is made for amendment of the existing entries in the Record of Rights, the person whose name already exists in such record is entitled to contest the proposed amendment. He can do so only if a notice regarding the proposed amendment is given to him by the recording authority. An order passed against a person whose name already exist in the Record of Rights without giving him notice of the proposed amendment and effective opportunity of hearing is liable to be declared nullity on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem, which, as mentioned above, represent the most important facet of the rules of natural justice. It needs no emphasis that the rules of natural justice are applicable in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The rule of hearing is also applicable in purely administrative proceedings and actions where any public authority passes an order affecting the rights of any individual. The applicability of the rules of natural justice to purely administrative actions has been recognized by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 and has been reiterated in various judgments including those of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 , Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136 , Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 . 11. 11. From the above discussion, it is clear that the requirement of issuing notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment is independent of the requirement of publication of notice in accordance with the second part of Section 5(3) read with Rules 19 and 5(2) of the Rules. The language of Form-VIII in which the notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of the substantive provision contained in Section 5(3), which, as mentioned above, casts a duty on the recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the proposed amendment.” In the instant case, there is no record to show that the revenue authority has issued notices to the legal heir of the pattadars before mutating the revenue records. In view of the same, the above Judgment squarely apply to the instant case. 20. Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 is extracted as under: “9. Revision. [Substituted with the marginal heading by Act No.9 of 1994.] The Collector may either suo-motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under section 3, 5, 5A or 5B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly. Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation. As per Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971, the Collector may either suo-motu or on an application made to him call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3,5,5A or 5B in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken. In view of the same, entertaining the revision filed by the unofficial respondents is within the power of Joint Collector under Section 9 of ROR Act, 1971. In the instant case also basing on the revision petition filed by the unofficial respondents, the respondent No.2 has verified the records and also basing on the report of the Tahsildar passed the impugned order. In view of the same, the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No.2 has no power or authority to entertain the revision is not acceptable. 21. This Court in number of cases held that in ROR proceedings, the aggrieved party without availing alternative remedy of appeal can approach the revisional authority under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971. This Court in Ramaswamy Satyagoud vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad , [Un-reported Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.12748 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019] held at para No.12 as follows: “12. On the issue of preferring revision without availing remedy of appeal the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not come to the aid of petitioner. In Bhupathi Varalamma while dealing with the power of revision, learned single Judge of this Court has not ruled, as sought to be contended that revision is not maintainable when remedy of appeal is available. Learned single Judge held that ordinarily if remedy of appeal is available, revision should not be entertained. However, learned single Judge held that in exceptional situations where the authority which passed the order patently lacked jurisdiction to pass order and to prevent abuse of power exercised by such an authority and miscarriage of justice being caused to the aggrieved party, revision can be entertained. Kola Satya Rao was also decided by learned single Judge who decided Bhupathi Varalamma. In the said case, revisional authority satisfied that it was not feasible or practicable to the aggrieved party to file an appeal or that the subordinate authority has passed an order, which is ex-facie contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act or in violation of the principles of natural justice, it can exercise its revisional jurisdiction to step in and correct such procedural illegality or impropriety. Learned single further in W.P.No.12748 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019. Learned single further in W.P.No.12748 of 2019 dated 21.08.2019. observed that “If the facts of the case justify, an aggrieved party can be allowed to bypass the appellate remedy and seek intervention of the revisional authority.” Said view of the learned single Judge is followed by another learned single Judge in T. Santosh Kumar. Decision in Yelangani Papaiah is also on similar lines. On a plain reading of provision in Section 9 and as considered by this Court in several decisions, merely because a person has not availed remedy of appeal, it cannot be said that revision is not maintainable. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No.5 without filing appropriate appeal filed revision before the respondent No.2 under Section 9 of ROR Act and the same is not maintainable. The findings of the above Judgment apply to the instant case, without filing any appeal, can file revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act and the same is valid. In view of the same, the contention of the petitioners is not acceptable. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Brundaban Sharma , [1995 Supp (3) SCC 249] , held at para Nos.16 and 18 as under: “16. It is, therefore, settled law that when the revisional power was conferred to effectuate a purpose, it is to be exercised in a reasonable manner which inheres the concept of its exercise within a reasonable time. Absence of limitation is an assurance to exercise the power with caution or circumspection to effectuate the purpose of the Act, or to prevent miscarriage of justice or violation of the provisions of the Act or misuse or abuse of the power by the lower authorities or fraud or suppression. Length of time depends on the factual scenario in a given case. Take a case that patta was obtained fraudulently in collusion with the officers and it comes to the notice of the authorities after a long lapse of time. Does it lie in the mouth of the party to the fraud to plead limitation to get away with the order? Does lapse of time an excuse to refrain from exercising the revisional power to unravel fraud and to set it right? The answers would be no. 18. Does it lie in the mouth of the party to the fraud to plead limitation to get away with the order? Does lapse of time an excuse to refrain from exercising the revisional power to unravel fraud and to set it right? The answers would be no. 18. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue exercised the power under Section 38B after an unreasonable lapse of time, though from the date of the grant of patta by the Tahsildar is of 27 years. It is true that from the date of the alleged grant of patta 27 years did pass. But its authenticity and correctness was shrouded with suspicious features. The records of the Tahsildar were destroyed. Who is to get the benefit? Who was responsible for it? The reasons are not far to seek. They are self-evident. So we hold that the exercise of revisional power under Section 38B by the Board of Revenue was legal and valid and it brooked no delay, after it had come to the Board's knowledge. That apart as held by the Board of Revenue, the order passed by the Tahsildar without confirmation by the Board is nonest. A nonest order is a void order and it confers no title and its validity can be questioned or invalidity be set up in any proceeding or at any stage. 23. The Judgment of this Court in Smt Munganda Venkataratnam vs. Joint Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru , [ 2006(2) ALT 44 (S.B.)] , squarely apply to the instant case. The relevant portion in para No.15 is as under:- “Since in para 25 of K. Rattamma v. G. Kotaiah 1975(2) An.WR 122, it is held that B.S.Os are only executive instructions for the guidance of the revenue officials and nothing more, Prima facie BSO 15(180 relied on by the petitioners does not confer any right on them to cling on to the assignments made because it is well known that fraud vitiates everything. Recently the Apex Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. T.Suryachandra Rao, after discussing the entire case law on the subject of fraud, held that no order obtained by fraud can be sustained. It is also well known that in case of fraud the period of limitation would commence from the date of discovery of fraud. Recently the Apex Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. T.Suryachandra Rao, after discussing the entire case law on the subject of fraud, held that no order obtained by fraud can be sustained. It is also well known that in case of fraud the period of limitation would commence from the date of discovery of fraud. Therefore, merely because a person could successfully shield the fraud played by him in obtaining assignment of Government land for several years, he cannot be heard to say that in view of the lapse of time the assignment in his favour cannot be cancelled. When power is vested in an authority to do an act, and if that authority exercises that power erroneously due to the fraud played on it, that authority has the implied power to undo its earlier act, performed by it as a result of the fraud played on it. First respondent without correctly appreciating the law and facts seems to have erroneously set aside the order cancelling the assignments but since that part of the order of first respondent, setting aside cancellation of assignments, became final, I do not wish to interfere with that part of the order of the first respondent”. 24. The findings in the above Judgments squarely apply to the instant case. In the instant case also the petitioners have purchased the schedule land through registered documents other than the pattadar and basing on the said registered documents and without issuing any notice, the mutation was taken place in favour of the father of the petitioner No.1 and also the petitioner No.1 contrary to the ROR Act. The respondent No.2 has rightly given a finding that there was discrepancy in conducting enquiry with regard to ascertaining the rights of the parties as per the ROR Act, 1971. 25. The Judgment of this Court in M. Ramulamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District , [2019 SCC Online TS 3455.] also apply to the instant case. The relevant portion in para Nos.62, 63. 64 and 65 as under: “62. It is not the case of respondent nos.3 to 6 that any notice was given to the petitioners at the time when the order H/206/1976 dt.19.02.1982 was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad (East) Division granting Occupancy Rights to Thota Balakrishna Reddy. It is also not their case that the said order was served on the petitioners. 63. It is not the case of respondent nos.3 to 6 that any notice was given to the petitioners at the time when the order H/206/1976 dt.19.02.1982 was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad (East) Division granting Occupancy Rights to Thota Balakrishna Reddy. It is also not their case that the said order was served on the petitioners. 63. Therefore, the limitation for challenging the said order would commence only from the date of knowledge of the order and not from the date of the said order. 64. In Bipromasz Bipron Trading Sa v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.6, the Supreme Court declared that an official order takes effect only when it is served on the person affected. 65. In State of W.B. v. R.K.B.K. Ltd.7, the Court declared that unless an adverse order is communicated, it does not come into effect and the person affected cannot be blamed for not preferring appeal within the specified time when it is not communicated to him. It held: "35. ... ... ... the words used in Para 10 are "date of the order". In the scheme of the Control Order, the order comes into effect from the date of receipt by the agent or the dealer. Once that becomes the decision, the commencement of limitation of 30 days for the purpose of Para 10 would be the date when the order is effective. The High Court in Rani Sati Kerosene Supply Co. has opined that if the order of cancellation is not served on the affected person and the appeal period expires, there is the possibility that the adverse order would become unassailable. The reasoning is totally fallacious. An appeal can only be preferred when the order is effective. The ineffective order, that is to say, uncommunicated order cannot be challenged. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Court in earlier judgment is erroneous and hence, the reliance thereupon by the impugned order is faulty. There has to be a purposive construction of the words "from the date of order". To place a construction that the date of an order would mean passing of the order, though not made effective would lead to an absurdity." In the instant case, apparently there is discrepancy in the proceedings and no notice was issued to the effected parties. There has to be a purposive construction of the words "from the date of order". To place a construction that the date of an order would mean passing of the order, though not made effective would lead to an absurdity." In the instant case, apparently there is discrepancy in the proceedings and no notice was issued to the effected parties. In view of the same, the above order of this Court squarely apply to the instant case as the limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the order and not from the date of orders. 26. The Judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are not squarely apply to the instant case as the facts are different in the instant case. 27. The respondent No.5 has not filed any appeal to the respondent No.3 under Section 5-B of ROR Act and he was only filed a representation. At the time of disposal of the revision, the respondent No.2 after perusal of the report of the respondent No.4 and also the registered documents, passed impugned order and remitted back to the Tahsildar for re-consideration, but further directed the Tahsildar to mutate the records in the name of the respondent No.5. The further direction issued by the respondent No.2 is contrary to the direction of remand for reconsideration. In view of the same, the direction issued to the Tahsildar in the impugned orders for mutation of records and rectification of entries without conducting enquiry and without giving opportunity to the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 28. It is a fit case for conducting fresh enquiry under ROR Act as there is discrepancy in the documents filed by the petitioners and also the proceedings under ROR Act were not followed for mutating the revenue records. The petitioners cannot take shelter on the ground of delay for reviewing of earlier orders which were passed without following the due procedure. 29. The petitioners cannot take shelter on the ground of delay for reviewing of earlier orders which were passed without following the due procedure. 29. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is partly allowed by setting aside the directions in so far as the direction to the Tahsldar, Mavala for rectification of entries in the revenue records of the suit schedule property in Case No.D1/2963/2016 dated 15.07.2017 issued by the respondent No.2-Joint Collector, Adilabad, is concerned and further remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Mavala to conduct de novo enquiry for mutation of the records and also issuance of pattadar passbooks for suit schedule land after issuing notice to the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondent No.6 by giving opportunity to the both sides including personal hearing. Till conclusion of the de novo enquiry, both parties are directed to maintain status quo existing as on today in all respects of the suit schedule land. No order as to costs. 30. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.